The updated policy wasn’t exactly a surprise: American Apparel APP in a regulatory filing last month said it would replace its prior code of ethics by Jan. 1 (it appears it slightly missed that deadline). In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company said the revised code was intended to “clarify, update, or enhance the descriptions of the standards of conduct that were expected of all directors, officers and employees of the company.”

The policy details appear pretty standard, touting American Apparel as an equal opportunity employer, requiring respectful conduct free of harassment, and proclaiming that no management-level employee may make sexual advances toward any subordinate, among many other policies. The new code is about 6,200 words long, and more than four times as long as its predecessor, according to Bloomberg.

But the chain had a history of lawsuits when it was run by Charney, who stayed on to run the company for years even after lawsuits were filed in New York and California, alleging sexual harassment, assault and battery, defamation, and other related claims. American Apparel and some of the board of directors were also named in those suits. The company has since said that it settled, or obtained a dismissal of all but one of those claims.

The struggling retail chain, known for its racy ads, is now being steered by fashion veteran Paula Schneider. Schneider could potentially be positioning American Apparel for a sale, although her public comments have suggested she knows there is first work to do to re-establish the brand.

“My goal is to make American Apparel a better company, while staying true to its core values of quality and creativity and preserving its sweatshop-free, Made in USA manufacturing philosophy,” Schneider said when she was named CEO last month.

She has her work cut out for her. American Apparel has reported four years of annual losses, despite an increase in sales over that period. The company is poised to report a fifth annual loss for 2014, losing $40.9 million for the first nine months of the year.

]]>http://fortune.com/2015/01/06/american-apparel-new-ethics-code/feed/0American Apparel Forced To Layoff Over A Thousand Factory WorkersjohnnerkellTobacco CEO and CVS exec both want people to quit smokinghttp://fortune.com/2014/10/23/tobacco-ceo-cvs-quit-smoking/
http://fortune.com/2014/10/23/tobacco-ceo-cvs-quit-smoking/#commentsThu, 23 Oct 2014 14:50:43 +0000http://fortune.com/?p=833333]]>Reynolds American RAIannounced that it will ban smoking from its offices starting next year. On the surface, the news isn’t shocking; society at-large has acknowledge cigarettes’ toxicity and banned their use in countless public places (and CVS Health CVS recently outlawed the sale of tobacco products in its stores). But those very products are a huge part of Reynolds American’s business, as the company owns brands like Camel and Pall Mall--and is the No. 2 tobacco company in America.

The decision begs the question: What happens when your business practices and what you want your brand to represent are in conflict? The two women behind these recent decisions--Helena Foulkes, President of CVS/pharmacy and EVP of CVS Health, and Susan Cameron, President and CEO of Reynolds American--shared their thoughts on the question of what to do when value and values collide in early October at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit.

Helena Foulkes:

The background: In February CVS Health (then called CVS Caremark) said it would stop selling cigarettes, a move that would take some $2 billion in revenue out of its stores. Foulkes said the company had talked about doing it for years and wrestled with the huge financial decision. "It was very consistent with our purpose," she said. "It reflected where we're going as a company strategically."

Foulkes added that the decision stemmed from CVS formalizing its mission a couple of years ago to help people on a path to better health. The message of health and being a health company fit with its three different businesses of pharmacy stores, benefits management service, and retail medical clinics. If that mission was going to be a filter for every decision executives made, Foulkes said CVS knew it would have to stop selling cigarettes. Foulkes admitted that she's surprised no other major retailer has followed, in large part because CVS spent a lot of time worrying about who in its competitive set would make the move first.

The decision led to an "incredible sense of pride" at the company, she said. CVS employees have since come forward with their own stories--Foulkes' mother died of lung cancer, for example. She noted that while we often feel uncomfortable marrying a personal decision with a business decision, in this case the company embraced both.

Susan Cameron:

The background: In July Cameron reached an agreement to buy tobacco competitor Lorillard for $27.4 billion--the deal is the largest acquisition ever by a woman. Reynolds plans to sell off Lorillard's Blue eCigs brand, the no. 1 e-cigarette in the U.S., for antitrust purposes. But Cameron has noted that the cash flow from Lorillard's Newport brand will go to building Reynolds’ e-cigarette business.

Cameron said at the Summit that Reynolds made a commitment a few years ago to transform the tobacco industry by giving people choices to reduce the harm caused by smoking. "People should quit," she said. "Let's try to find them some satisfying alternatives." She added that Reynolds is the most active company in its industry investing in alternatives like vapor and gum, which she says have very different risk profiles than cigarettes. (Cameron quit smoking combustible cigarettes a decade ago and now uses e-cigarettes.) "I'm proud of what we've done at Reynolds to give smokers alternatives," she said.

The company recently has come across a new purpose-driven business. Cameron noted that Reynolds owns a subsidiary that's using tobacco plants to help make the anti-Ebola virus serum Zmapp. She said it takes a million tobacco plants, which are a high source of protein, to make 25 doses of this serum.

]]>http://fortune.com/2014/10/23/tobacco-ceo-cvs-quit-smoking/feed/0Fortune Most Powerful Women 2014bkowittThe many ways companies profit from hastening employees’ deathshttp://fortune.com/2014/06/24/employee-death-insurance/
http://fortune.com/2014/06/24/employee-death-insurance/#commentsTue, 24 Jun 2014 14:17:53 +0000http://fortune.com/?p=725938]]>Hundreds of companies have taken out life insurance policies that will pay them tens of billions of dollars when their employees die. Bank of America stands to make $20 billion alone from the demise of its workers.

And the really creepy thing: The policies tend to be whole life, and companies hang out to them long after their employees stop working for them. That means Bank of America BAC and others stand to collect money not just from the death of their current employees, but from their ex-staffers as well.

On Monday, The New York Times ran an article pointing out how unsettling it is that companies are waiting to collect insurance cash on some (potentially large) number of employees. The real question: It is really wrong?

First of all, there is a legitimate reason for insuring current employees. The loss of an employee, even beyond a CEO or CFO, can cost a company money. And it costs a lot to recruit someone new and train that person. The law only allows companies to take out life insurance policies on the highest earning 35% of their workers.

Second, it’s not clear how employees are being ripped off. Companies are buying the policies from insurance companies and making the premium payments. If anyone is losing money on the policies, it’s either the insurance companies or the employers. But according to the NYT, there is a growing business in these policies, so it seems both sides of the transaction think they are getting the better end of the bet.

Yes, the former employer collects the money from the policy, not the dead person’s spouse or children or loved ones. But they could. An employee could take out their own fancy financial contract that will allow their heirs to “profit” when they die. It’s called life insurance and it’s sold all the time. The fact that a company has taken out a life insurance policy on you generally doesn’t stop you from doing the same.

Michael Myers, who has successfully sued companies based on these life insurance policies, agrees that individuals are not losing financially. But he says it’s less a financial matter and more of an issue of public policy and ethics. If companies care less about whether their employees live, they will care less about keeping them away from harm. But there are plenty of other laws that are supposed to ensure that workers are safe. Myers also argues that everyone should have the right to decide who benefits when they die. And that’s what people are being deprived of.

At the same time, there are plenty of ways companies make money from hastening their employees’ deaths. In the recession, companies laid off millions of workers. Productivity shot up as companies made the remaining workers do more. That means more time on the job, less time with family, and less sleep. Most long-term studies show that prolonged sleep depravation leads to poor health. Stress, too, is a killer.

Then there are pension plans and health retiree benefits, for companies that still have those. Employers can save money on those items when employees die younger than expected.

If anyone is being ripped off here, it’s Uncle Sam. Both the payments companies make for the life insurance policies and the payouts they receive when employees die are tax free. So, perhaps the biggest game being played here is a tax dodge. And in that way, taxpayers, who are ultimately the ones companies are insuring against, are being ripped off. But that’s probably a pretty minor rip-off when it comes to corporate tax dodges and not the kind to get the most upset about, even if it is the creepiest.

]]>http://fortune.com/2014/06/24/employee-death-insurance/feed/0Bank Of America Speeds Up Plan For Mass Layoffsstephengandelfortune